Bring back CFCs then. Problem solved.
I was just trying to make you feel old. But seriously, the global cooling thing didn't have anything close to the amount of support and consensus from the scientific community that you're seeing with global warming. I don't think you can ask "hey, the global cooling thing turned out to be wrong, so what's to say that global warming won't turn out the same way either?" There are apples and oranges.
You're right, you are young. They were ing nuts about it. Just as much hysteria as there is today over global war...er, global climate change.
It's not apples and oranges, it's two sides of the same coin. Liberals usurping science to force social change.
but the only difference that matters is the presence of scientific consensus in one theory and not the other.
Nah, there was a concensus then too. It was beyond debate. It was, as Algore likes to say, a settled matter.
we'll if you call hype by the media "scientific consensus," then I guess you're right: the cooling theory is on "equal scientific footing" with the warming theory . FYI, I'm being sarcastic.
There are unpleasant side effects to that, which I'm sure you know, although some have suggested aerosol-seeding of the upper atmosphere as an extreme measure to induce cooling, in the event global climate change threatens human survival at some point in the future.
I wonder what will happen with all the coal burning China is doing? I wonder what their coals sulpher content is? Could they be the cause of the record rains?
With modern scientific evidence of the last few recent years, it is clear than man-made global warming has as much credibility as the flat earth theory. Don't forget, there was consensus then, and those who said otherwise were heretics. Today’s heretics are the deniers. History will show them correct and the alrmists as foolish as those who told Columbus he would fall of the edge of the Earth.
They will create a lot of pollution; pretty high; no.
So, you think that the major scientific ins utes of the world are engaged in psuedo-science, not empirical science?
It is the empirical science of the world's major scientific ins utes and universities that informs climate change theory.
Just shot your neo-con agenda in the foot there.
Sorry, which peer-reviewed journals are YOU reading? Do they have lots of dots that you join together?
WTF are you talking about? The more we look at the climate, the more certain the scientific community becomes that we are fundamentally affecting it. You are LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH.
Climate change denial has the credibility of flat earth amongst scientists. Amongst neo-cons with a monetary and political agendas such as you it might have some credibility, but not scientists.
You know what, AL GORE. Scientists want nothing to do with Gore. He hijacks the debate about what we should be doing away from science and policy to petty politics. He is a hypocrite and a fool.
Stop using anti-Gore arguments, which are political, to attempt to discredit the science. Address the science. But you can't. That's the problem. All the debunkers have been shamed by the scientists they misrepresent. All the debunker's objections have been answered. But you never mention that.
Even the biggest of climate change deniers, Bjorn Lomborg who wrote The Sceptical Environmentalist back in 2000, has flip-flopped and now agrees that climate change is occurring.
this . None of you wits know a damn thing. I work with people who report on different aspects of climate change every freakin day, and you insult every one of them - basically, you call them liars and fools - with your bull . Some of these people are at the top of their respective fields, engaged in cutting edge empirical science at one of the world's leading research ins utions, and not one of them has any doubt that climate change is being driven by human activity. But you know betterthan them, and thousands of others engaged in similar research across the globe. Yup, you guys know better.
But, no, I'm the one with my eyes closed...
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 07-22-2007 at 12:15 AM.
Agreed.
I most certainly can address the science. I understand more about this issue than at least 99% of the population.
Funny, he’s one I haven’t heard of. Maybe because he did dabble with junk science. I did a quick wiki read on him. Nobody I’ve listened to.
So what do they say about:
The change in solar activity between about 1900 to about 1950.
CO2 lagging long term temperature changes by an average of 800 years.
That the equilibrium the ocean establishes accounts for 28 ppm of CO2 per degree C change.
The obvious approximate 1500 year cycle in global temperatures
Solar activity being verifiable by the isotope concentrations of Oxygen 18, Beryllium 10, and Carbon 14, and coinciding with global changes.
The problems of accurate CO2 changes in ice cores once the samples are so deep the CO2 changes from gas to liquid.
That CO2 is near saturation levels for trapping heat at the frequencies it vibrates at.
That CO2 increases do not have a linear relationship to trapped heat like the IPCC report indicates falsely in calculations.
Why do troposphere atmospheric measurements for these last several decades not track surface temperature measurements, and over the long term, show almost no increase.
That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure I can find more good questions.
On solar activity. The average output changed by about 0.15% which may not seem significant, but is perhaps a 0.3 Celsius change in temperature. Since land is only about 1/3 the surface, only 0.1 C will track with it. The rest is absorbed into the ocean and released slowly. I haven’t seen data here, but would place a 150 year or more smoothing on a plot as a guess for the other 0.2 degrees.
Then why are factors ignored that offer results they don’t like?
There are so many that dispute the alarmist. They have coherent arguments that put the alarmists to shame.
As for knowing better than them? Are their motives skewed by grant monies to show such an output, or not?
If they are claiming we are causing the warming, then yes. I know better than them. Do they ever mention the troposphere measurements in their research? The ocean equilibrium? Compare with data available from the SOHO satellite? The fact that the atmosphere only accounts for less than 2% of the CO2?
Ooh! Ooh! I know this one.
CO2 approaches saturation at lower levels of the atmosphere (troposphere); however, these are not the levels at which radiation is lost back to space. At those upper levels, CO2 is not close to saturation, but it is increasing apace.
An old fallacy about the atmosphere was to treat it as if it were geneous, when instead it has distinct layers. CO2 concentration within a single layer will be relatively constant due to the mixing effect of convection, but this does not translate across different layers.
The earth at equilibrium will always be in energy balance with the sun, so however much radiation it is seeing from the sun, that is how much it will be emitting as well. So the temperature at that interface essentially is only a function of the sun's output.
However, the surface temperature will depend upon the atmospheric "resistance" to losing heat. CO2 works like a kink in the hose or a dam in the river. The level of the river downstream of the dam will be the same as if the dam were never built (i.e., temperatures in the upper atmosphere), but the level upstream will be much higher (i.e., temperatures in the lower atmosphere).
You see the same effect in the contrast between the temperature on a cloudy, humid night as opposed to a clear, dry one. CO2 acts in the same way as water vapor in that regard in providing resistance to the loss of heat.
The difference between CO2 and water vapor is that the water does not get up into the upper layers of the atmosphere in comparable quan ies to what CO2 does.
They're liars and/or fools. Lying fools or foolish liars.
No one has as of yet been able to explain this to me...
Things like Ice Ages with 4500 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere contradict a human driven warming trend with CO2 as the cause.
Just me though...
, RNR seems to ignore any rebuttal or opposing views to
any of his arguments. Like what I posted in the club. Of course
he does go to a University and all his rebuttals are peer reviewed.
Well except maybe his replies when he is in a bad mood.
Quote:
RNR, here is a little more "research" on the Edwards. Now I know
this must have been peer reviewed, since you quoted the same
source. Maybe you should do a little more depth in your research.
Frequently Asked Questions
Here are answers to some of the questions I get asked most frequently regarding the Edwards Aquifer and issues surrounding it. Let me know if you have a question you would like to see answered here!
Will we run out of water?
Unless we start mining the resource by using more than goes in on a long term basis, we will always be able to get plenty of good water for critical uses like eating and bathing. We have never seen the Aquifer less than 90-95% full, so there is lots of water down there we can use if we have to in an extreme drought. However, we sometimes DO run out of water in the top 5-10% of the Edwards formation, and when that happens the springs stop flowing. Lots of people, along with endangered plants and animals, depend on water from the springs. To keep them flowing we have to keep the Aquifer almost full.
Do we have a water shortage?
Maybe it's more correct to call it a money shortage. If money were no object, we could do very expensive things like desalinate ocean water and have an unlimited supply. What we are running short on is the cheap, seemingly limitless aquifer water that we have been used to using without restriction. All of the alternative water sources seem very expensive by comparison.
So is our water shortage more related to environmental protection and economics and equitable sharing than an actual physical shortage of water?
Yes.
How much water is in the aquifer?
Because of the complexity of the Aquifer system, it is difficult to narrow down the range of how much water we think it contains. One thing that is clear is there's a big difference between how much water the Aquifer contains and how much water could be extracted. Some researchers have estimated the Aquifer may contain as much as 175 million acre feet. However, that figure includes water locked up in pore spaces that are not connected to any other pores, so that water can't move anywhere and is therefore not available. A more reasonable estimate of 25-55 million acre-feet is based on effective porosity, which is a measure of the percentage of pore spaces within the rock that are connected to other pore spaces (see Maclay, 1981 and Ogden, 1986). Pores must be connected for water to move through the rock and to the surface through springs and wells. Additionally, one should not picture the Aquifer as a vast underground pool. There are undoubtedly many large caverns, but most of the water is in small pore spaces that are probably no larger than your finger.
Some people say there is enough water in the aquifer to supply our needs for several hundred years, even if it never rains again. Is that true?
If there's 25-55 million acre feet of water available, and if we use only 450,000 acre feet a year, then it sounds like there's enough water to last 200 years! However, the aquifer contains a lot of water that we can't really get to in legal or practical terms. The problem is the springs go dry when the aquifer is still 95% full. So as long as we are going to maintain at least minimal natural springflows for the sake of endangered species, recreational economies, downstream ecosystems, and downstream economies, then the large amount of water below the level of the springs is essentially unavailable to us. Even if we did decide to let all the springs go dry and pump out as much water as we need, it is very expensive to pump large amounts of water up from great depths and it would soon get prohibitively expensive.
=======================================
I had stated that the rainfall over the whole earth was not
accurately measured or known and his rebuttal was that
"every" drop of rain is accurately measured by river flow.
I then countered that no one even knows how much water is
contained in the Edwards aquifer, where San Antonio gets
most of it's water, and he posted the measurement well of
the Edwards at Fort Sam Houston. So I went back to the same
website and the results are posted above.
But of course he doesn't like to be challenged and he is a
budding scientist, just that he has some liberal leanings
RNR Rant
Well done.
You are the first person I ever encountered that pointed that out. It is very close to correct from my understanding. However, the primary frequencies that CO2 absorb from radiated heat from the surface is in a narrow band from about 12 micrometers to 17 micrometers. The other bands are at radiation levels so minute levels (near the ends of a curve like a bell curve) that 100% of them are a very small portion of the infrared radiated This 12-17 band in near the peak levels of frequencies radiated and covers about (my visual estimate) 18% of the radiated power. H2O overlaps this band at about half the absorption capacity.
Now what you are stating is that the heat is trapped at lower levels and therefore is radiated and trapped at a greater percentage than what finally makes it out to space, am I right? Problem is this. What is re-radiated from the CO2 is more than just the same frequencies absorbed. The atmosphere is composed of primarily N2 and O2. The added heat from the CO2 warms these molecules, and is then radiated at frequencies that primarily don’t care about CO2. There is an effect as you describe, but with the minimal at ude changes the 100% saturation point becomes, this difference is still insignificant.
Correct in general. CO2 mixes well up to 80 km. It is other gasses that don’t mix so well and are in different concentrations.
Yes and no. That is true for land surface areas. The oceans absorbs the radiation rather deep, and hold the heat for some time before the equilibrium can be achieved. One scientists estimates that the ocean is holding so much energy not yet in balance that the earth will still heat up by one degree from it. The theory is sound, but not necessarily the specific numbers.
In the end, all this does is create a more severe delta T between the immediate lower atmosphere and the next layers. It does not have an effect of changing the global temperature. I have no argument against those who say it changes climate however. I am one to believe that weather patterns are more severe as it takes more violent reactions to achieve balance, like stronger hurricanes and tornadoes.
Resistance is an incorrect analogy because it implies a linear effect. However, yes otherwise.
Agreed, and is not as constant as CO2 levels.
Are we really disagreeing? Seems like we agree. Just not on the finer nuances and the final results.
The global warming deniers explain it rather well, factually. It is simple. The effect that CO2 has on atmospheric warming reaches near a 100% effect real fast, probably at about 100 ppm. Once the primary frequency range that CO2 can trap is at 100%, the rest is insignificant.No one has as of yet been able to explain this to me...
Things like Ice Ages with 4500 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere contradict a human driven warming trend with CO2 as the cause.
Just me though...
Nice graph.
Eh,Now what you are stating is that the heat is trapped at lower levels and therefore is radiated and trapped at a greater percentage than what finally makes it out to space, am I right? Problem is this. What is re-radiated from the CO2 is more than just the same frequencies absorbed. The atmosphere is composed of primarily N2 and O2. The added heat from the CO2 warms these molecules, and is then radiated at frequencies that primarily don’t care about CO2. There is an effect as you describe, but with the minimal at ude changes the 100% saturation point becomes, this difference is still insignificant.
Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model(2000)
Anything with the word "model" in it is a guess.
Well, yeah, but it's a well-respected guess...
Or, more likely, this was a volcanic period and a lot of CO2 as well as sulfur dioxide SO2, which is very reflective of the Sun's solar radiation and thus cooled the earth, were propelled into the atmosphere....Things like Ice Ages with 4500 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere contradict a human driven warming trend with CO2 as the cause.
Very nice find Dan. I started reading the article. I like it. I don't know how accurate it is, but my inital opinion is that it is a great piece to the puzzle of determining various aspects of warming.
Get back later on it. Not much time during these wee hours to focus on it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
